Huh? If you are asking what I think you are asking, then yes. The CDC
ESTIMATED that ~12,500 people died.
The testing kits were developed about 2 weeks after the first cases in the US were discovered.
"
CDC Laboratories Bolster Nation’s Testing Capacity
While initial efforts were underway to develop a safe and effective vaccine to protect people against 2009 H1N1, work also was being done at CDC to help laboratories supporting health care professionals to more quickly identify the 2009 H1N1 virus in samples from patients. The real-time PCR test developed by CDC was cleared for use by diagnostic laboratories by FDA under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) on April 28, 2009, less than two weeks after identification of the new pandemic virus.
www.cdc.gov
I do not know the exact number of tests that were made, but from the site, is does indicate that at least 1 million tests were made available.
From looking at the data, it appears that the 60 million number is mostly based upon estimates of hospitalizations during the time period as opposed to confirmed cases.
Not really sure what point you are trying to make. H1N1, despite the boogeyman you are trying to make it out to be, was essentially...a bad flu. It's mortality rate wasn't particularly different from other standard flu variants. What made it stand out was that it's mortality rate amongst children / younger people was significantly higher.
You can say that we got "lucky" that H1N1 wasn't worse, but again, that is based upon the assumption that the administration would have done the exactly the same thing even if the mortality rate was much higher.
Feel free to read the entire response in the link above. The virus was discovered, test kits were made, a vaccination was developed. Generally the same formula / response as Covid. Initial mortality rates were being reported as 3 to 5%, so the timetables and responses were appropriately higher.
I was in a discussion a couple of weeks ago with another poster about "how many deaths would we have if Hillary had been president instead of Trump". I am on record and answered honestly that it would have still been in the 120,000+ range. I don't have a particular problem with the Trump administration's response for the first few months (March - April). I think a democratic admin would have essentially done most of the same steps. The difference is June and beyond. While Trump encouraged states to open back up and was setting a bad precedent by demonizing mask-wearing, I believe that a Hillary (and/or Biden admin if you prefer) would have taken things more slowly. I can't prove that, but it seems to fit their personalities. You can believe what you want to believe, and I doubt I can change your mind, but there is little evidence to suggest that a democratic admin would have performed significantly worse, which is the core concept of what you are implying.